I got feeling the sort of stuff they will offer will either not be something a review is relevant to, or people will determine it's non-exclusive equivalent.
Item #1234t will be their exclusive brand, and item #1234 will be the non-exclusive one that's reviewed and orderable online.
Yea not sure where they are comparing Target to, to consider them low-end. Here in my city Targets are only located in the nicer parts of town. The closest Target to where I live is a half hour drive, and the rents on the Apts there are at least twice what I pay.
Also people combine trips. Go to Target, or Walmart for groceries/clothes which you cannot really do online then while you are there shop for a new vacuum or look at the TV's they have. If you like any of them check them out online and compare prices, if its cheaper online you can have your order placed via your phone before walking out the store with your other stuff.
A lot of places that do price matching already do this.
It'll be SKUs #####A, #####B, #####C.
Retailers #1, #2, #3, each get the respective SKU, despite being an identical product. And when you try to price match they won't as it's technically a different item. Of course they leave off how they are the only ones who sell that SKU and thus would price match themselves.
Just lookup the item # online and call ahead to the store. If they have it ask them to hold onto it upfront and head over. If they don't, find another location/store.
Often times a bank will be in debt tens or even hundreds of thousands which their share has to pay off. Keep in mind their share might be as small as 0.1%. Plus the label can then go and do more advertising with consultation of the band so the band would rack up additional debt.
The only groups who ever made real money were the ultra popular ones. All the stuff you see on TV and the like is on loan to the group, at a nominal fee of course too.
Being signed to a major label might as well be slavery.
Yea, but Dodd and his biddies are the ones who "donate" to their election funds, if they do denounce him they will still hurt their election plans but not getting any more money.
The private company would own everything and lease it at cost to the town. It would technically be private but people would still get their internet where the existing private ones choose not to go.
And this is why I don't understand why people are so opposed to profiling people. Statistically some people are more predisposed to act a certain way, yet we cry foul when we take that into consideration. (I.E. Young males are more likely to be involved in an accident then middle aged women)
At this point "terrorist" has lost all meaning. It means nothing other then "Person we do not like"; might as well call them Communists, same thing at this point.
Not only that but you have them selling music that they do not legally own.
Artists makes music under contract. Leaves contract. Makes more under different name/likeness. Years later artist finds that old music company is publishing his new music and not paying him anything.
It may be easy for us, but what about your parents? or grandparents? They're going to be voting on these same congress people, and will also be affected by these laws.
Which do you think they visit more Wiki/Google or slashdot?
In part due to how way the transaction is handled. I am expected to hand over my money and buy the game THEN get to see the terms, if I do not agree to them I am still out my money with no recourse.
Look at any other agreement and the terms are known up front, even if in legalese. Taking out a loan? You'll see the terms before you sign. Singing a lease? Again you get to see the terms.
In both cases you can walk away with no harm done.
Except by not passing the law Spain is not seen as an Ally.
Far too often in recent history the US seems to be taking a "With us or Against us" stance when it comes to other countries internal dealings. They either do as we tell them, or else...
Many larger companies will have set deals in place, where it wont matter if they get 10K or 1M transactions either way they will pay a set amount for the transactions. Though you do need a lot of to make it economical.
My company has this in place and we are nowhere near as large as Verizon.
I think you missed the point of the comment I was replying to.
They were saying it is unfair for someone to use money from SS later in life even though they paid in because the amount they take out will be more then they paid in.
They're equating SS to a long term savings account that you cannot withdraw from till late in life while at the same time being required to pay into; then when it's your turn get more out of then you put in. And thus having it be unfair.
Obviously its a complex issue, I am simply open to both sides of the argument. Though I agree with your sentiment, people in general not just the Boomers are very "I got mine" about social services. "No socialized healthcare for the poor and infirm, but don't touch my medicare"
Personally I would prefer to manage my own money, let me invest/save for my own future, if I am broke when I'm old I'll have only myself to blame.
TBH I am sort of conflicted on that since she was required to pay into the system, was it not her right to be able to take out the money she paid into it?
Of course it would be nice for some of these people who decry Medicare/SS to forgo the benefits later in life. I guess it's how many Pro-Lifers are one unplanned pregnancy away from being Pro-Choice.
"I am against X, until I have to face the repercussions of that in which I case I am now in favor of it"
While I agree Google does appear to be a monopoly on the outside, I don't think it's been abusing it's position and there is an alternative that people can use if they do not want to use Google. After all it's not like Google is saying that they own your computer and you're just leasing it from them.
Sadly the same cannot be said for the Cable provider. Cable Internet from one provider or my choice of Dial Up providers.
Slashdot Mirror
I got feeling the sort of stuff they will offer will either not be something a review is relevant to, or people will determine it's non-exclusive equivalent.
Item #1234t will be their exclusive brand, and item #1234 will be the non-exclusive one that's reviewed and orderable online.
Yea not sure where they are comparing Target to, to consider them low-end.
Here in my city Targets are only located in the nicer parts of town. The closest Target to where I live is a half hour drive, and the rents on the Apts there are at least twice what I pay.
Also people combine trips.
Go to Target, or Walmart for groceries/clothes which you cannot really do online then while you are there shop for a new vacuum or look at the TV's they have. If you like any of them check them out online and compare prices, if its cheaper online you can have your order placed via your phone before walking out the store with your other stuff.
A lot of places that do price matching already do this.
It'll be SKUs #####A, #####B, #####C.
Retailers #1, #2, #3, each get the respective SKU, despite being an identical product. And when you try to price match they won't as it's technically a different item. Of course they leave off how they are the only ones who sell that SKU and thus would price match themselves.
Just lookup the item # online and call ahead to the store. If they have it ask them to hold onto it upfront and head over. If they don't, find another location/store.
Yep, 100% normal.
Often times a bank will be in debt tens or even hundreds of thousands which their share has to pay off. Keep in mind their share might be as small as 0.1%. Plus the label can then go and do more advertising with consultation of the band so the band would rack up additional debt.
The only groups who ever made real money were the ultra popular ones. All the stuff you see on TV and the like is on loan to the group, at a nominal fee of course too.
Being signed to a major label might as well be slavery.
Yea, but Dodd and his biddies are the ones who "donate" to their election funds, if they do denounce him they will still hurt their election plans but not getting any more money.
That's the point.
The private company would own everything and lease it at cost to the town. It would technically be private but people would still get their internet where the existing private ones choose not to go.
Really is scary.
Illegal shapes.
And this is why I don't understand why people are so opposed to profiling people.
Statistically some people are more predisposed to act a certain way, yet we cry foul when we take that into consideration. (I.E. Young males are more likely to be involved in an accident then middle aged women)
At this point "terrorist" has lost all meaning.
It means nothing other then "Person we do not like"; might as well call them Communists, same thing at this point.
Not only that but you have them selling music that they do not legally own.
Artists makes music under contract. Leaves contract. Makes more under different name/likeness. Years later artist finds that old music company is publishing his new music and not paying him anything.
It may be easy for us, but what about your parents? or grandparents?
They're going to be voting on these same congress people, and will also be affected by these laws.
Which do you think they visit more Wiki/Google or slashdot?
And to think, it was not too long ago that a Blackberry was "the phone to own".
EULAs are not as binding as many would think.
In part due to how way the transaction is handled. I am expected to hand over my money and buy the game THEN get to see the terms, if I do not agree to them I am still out my money with no recourse.
Look at any other agreement and the terms are known up front, even if in legalese.
Taking out a loan? You'll see the terms before you sign.
Singing a lease? Again you get to see the terms.
In both cases you can walk away with no harm done.
To answer your question, no you cannot buy the same game twice; even if bought retail you cannot register two keys to the same account.
You would have to make a second account for the second key/copy.
Except by not passing the law Spain is not seen as an Ally.
Far too often in recent history the US seems to be taking a "With us or Against us" stance when it comes to other countries internal dealings. They either do as we tell them, or else...
Exactly...
We should not allow a private entity to use public funds to offset development costs then privatize/copyright the profits.
Many larger companies will have set deals in place, where it wont matter if they get 10K or 1M transactions either way they will pay a set amount for the transactions. Though you do need a lot of to make it economical.
My company has this in place and we are nowhere near as large as Verizon.
I think you missed the point of the comment I was replying to.
They were saying it is unfair for someone to use money from SS later in life even though they paid in because the amount they take out will be more then they paid in.
They're equating SS to a long term savings account that you cannot withdraw from till late in life while at the same time being required to pay into; then when it's your turn get more out of then you put in. And thus having it be unfair.
You could say the same thing about a magazine or newspaper.
And yes, advertisers could opt for say Bing or another network, just because one organization is the largest does not mean it has a monopoly.
Obviously its a complex issue, I am simply open to both sides of the argument. Though I agree with your sentiment, people in general not just the Boomers are very "I got mine" about social services. "No socialized healthcare for the poor and infirm, but don't touch my medicare"
Personally I would prefer to manage my own money, let me invest/save for my own future, if I am broke when I'm old I'll have only myself to blame.
TBH I am sort of conflicted on that since she was required to pay into the system, was it not her right to be able to take out the money she paid into it?
Of course it would be nice for some of these people who decry Medicare/SS to forgo the benefits later in life. I guess it's how many Pro-Lifers are one unplanned pregnancy away from being Pro-Choice.
"I am against X, until I have to face the repercussions of that in which I case I am now in favor of it"
While I agree Google does appear to be a monopoly on the outside, I don't think it's been abusing it's position and there is an alternative that people can use if they do not want to use Google. After all it's not like Google is saying that they own your computer and you're just leasing it from them.
Sadly the same cannot be said for the Cable provider. Cable Internet from one provider or my choice of Dial Up providers.
Yep, then they came out shortly after and were all WHOOPS sorry! Then went and did it again.